This article is written by Priyal Bakul Shah, 3rd year LL.B student studying at New Law College,Mahim.
INTRODUCTION.
In accordance with the limitations of any law passed by Parliament, the Supreme Court is authorised to review its own decisions under Article 137. Article 145 of the constitution grants the court the authority to exercise this power. The Supreme Court will have the power to review on the following grounds:
- discovery of new, significant evidence;
- error or mistake on the record’s face; and
- any other valid justification.
MEANING
According to Part V, Chapter IV of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court of India is the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court of India serves as the highest court of appeals, per the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India’s composition and jurisdiction are outlined in Articles 124 to 147 of the Indian Constitution. It is primarily an appellate court that hears appeals against decisions made by the provincial High Courts. However, it also accepts writ petitions when there have been severe violations of human rights or when a case involves a challenging problem that requires immediate attention. Original, appellate, advisory, and review jurisdiction all belong to the Supreme Court.
In legal jargon, the word “Review” denotes a judicial re-examination of the case. Therefore, a provision for review has been established under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which grants a substantive right of review and Order XLVII there under provides for the procedure, in order to correct an error and prevent the grievous wrongful conviction. Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC govern the handling of Review Petition. Any party who feels wronged by an order or judgement may request that the same court review it. If there is no appeal provision or if no appeal is preferred, it may be filed. Courts have the discretion to grant a review petition. There aren’t many grounds for review. The same court receives the review filings.
ARTICLE 137
Supreme Court reviews of rulings or orders- the Supreme Court has the authority to review any decision made or order issued by it, subject to the provisions of any law passed by Parliament or any rules made in accordance with article 145. An application for review is only considered in a civil proceeding on a basis specified in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the basis of an error that is obvious on the face of the record (Order XL, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966). According to Supreme Court Rules from 1966, such a petition must be filed within 30 days of the date of the judgement or order and, to the greatest extent possible, it must be circulated to the same bench of judges who delivered the judgement or order sought to be reviewed without oral arguments. Therefore, the review will lie in the Supreme Court on:
- DISCOVERY OF NEW EVIDENCE
In O N Mohindroo vs Dist Judge, Delhi, 1971, If the court’s attention was not drawn to a material statutory provision during the first hearing, or if a manifest wrong has been committed and an order is required to do full and effective justice, the court will review its decision. Whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is unquestionable that it cannot be compared to the initial hearing of the case, and the finality of the court’s judgement will not be reconsidered unless “a glaring omission, patent mistake, or grave error has earlier been introduced by judicial fallibility.”
The discovery of new evidence must contain:
- The relevancy of the same and
- Possess the necessary character that, if revealed in court, would have changed the judgement.
In G.L.Gupta vs. D.N. Mehta, the Supreme Court overruled an earlier decision in a criminal appeal because a statutory provision of the Foreign Exchange Act, which was crucial to the case, had not been brought to its attention. The court altered the judgement to an imprisonment.
- ERROR APPARENT ON RECORD
It can be said that an error is apparent on the face of the record if it is patent, manifest, and self-evident and does not require a lengthy discussion of the supporting facts or arguments.
In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Malikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumule, the Supreme Court has held that it is difficult to say that a mistake that must be proven through a drawn-out process of reasoning on issues where there could possibly be two sides to the story is one that is obvious from the record. According to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue a writ of certiorari, an alleged error cannot be corrected where it is far from obvious and must be established through protracted and difficult arguments.
In Sarala Mudgal v. Union of India, the court declined to reconsider its earlier decision because there was no error that could be seen on the record and no new information had emerged since the judgement. No fundamental right guaranteed to citizens was violated by the earlier judgement. A review petition cannot be used merely because a different viewpoint might be adopted.
In Tungabhadra Industries (Pvt.) ltd V. Government of Andhra Pradesh, a review is not an appeal in disguise in which an incorrect decision is reheard and corrected, but only for patent error. It would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate justification one could point to the error and say here is a considerable point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. However, we do not believe that this presents a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail.
It will be an error apparent on the face of the record and a basis for review if the Supreme Court’s law is not taken into consideration. The review’s purpose is to quickly end the injustice that may be necessary by invoking the No act of court should harm a person, according to the legal principle “actus curie neminem gravabit” If a person is harmed unintentionally as a result of a litigant, it is the courts’ duty to ensure the court, he should be quickly put back in the position he would have been in if not for the mistake. The Honorable Supreme Court has stated that “universal acceptance of human fallibility is basic philosophy.
- OTHER SUFFICIENT REASONS
The meaning of the phrase “any other sufficient reason” in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is that a decree or order that was passed without knowledge of the true state of the circumstances is a sufficient basis for exercising the power. Some of the situations where the court may exercise such a power are:-
1. Violation of a fundamental right
2. Violation of the principles of natural justice
3. Mistake of the court
4. Judgement was obtained by fraud
5. The court made the earlier order without jurisdiction
The justification must be ejusdem generis to the aforementioned reasons. However, the term “analogous reason” is more general and refers to a reason that is comparable to or similar in some ways to the reasons previously stated. The provisions of Order 47, rule, 1 of the Civil Procedure Code therefore apply to an excused failure to bring the relevant material to the Court’s attention. The error of the counsel would qualify as “any other sufficient cause,” which would be a sufficient basis for granting review.
In Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc. vs Union of India & Ors. , the court described its review authority as the ability to review can be used to correct errors and replace viewpoints. Such powers may only be used in accordance with the restrictions imposed by the relevant statute. The mere possibility of opposing viewpoints on a given issue does not warrant review.
DOCTRINE OF CURATIVE PETITIONS
Article 137 of the Indian Constitution supports the idea of the curative petition. It states that the Supreme Court has the authority to review any judgement rendered (or order issued) by it with regard to laws and rules made under Article 145. A petition of this nature must be submitted within 30 days of the date of the ruling or order.
The Supreme Court of India first developed the idea of the curative petition in the case Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and another case (2002), which dealt with the issue of whether a party who had been wronged was still entitled to any relief against the Supreme Court’s final ruling or order even after a review petition had been denied. A question arose in this case regarding the aggrieved party’s right to seek any relief against the Supreme Court’s concluding order following the dismissal of the review petition. Additionally, the Supreme Court in this case stated that it must exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its decisions in order to prevent and correct a miscarriage of justice. The court has coined the phrase “curative petition” to describe this. The grounds mentioned there and previously raised in the audit request documented, which was excused, must be made by the petitioner in a healing appeal.
But in order to limit the number of unnecessary petitions asking for a second review, the court has established some specific requirements before it will consider such a petition under its inherent authority. After a review petition under article 137 was denied for very good reasons, such as, the court’s inherent power allows for the filing of such a Curative Petition to request review of a decision that has already become final.
1. When the affected party was not given notice of the proceedings or was not heard during them, there is a deviation from the natural justice principle of the right to be heard.
2. A judge who took part in the decision-making process failed to disclose his relationships with any parties involved in the case, raising the issue of bias.
3. Abuse of the judicial process
CONCLUSION.
The purpose of Art. 137 of the Constitution is to allow for the review of the decision of a case by the same judge who rendered judgement in order to prevent injustice while also taking into account the possibility of human error, even on the part of judges of the highest court. It is also important to keep in mind that every court has the authority to conduct a review in order to prevent injustice from occurring or to address serious violations of the law. The power of review, it should be acknowledged, is not one that the Court naturally possesses; rather, it must be granted by a law, either expressly or by necessary implication.
REFERENCES
- https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2019/11/14/what-is-a-review/
- https://www.lawyersupdate.co.in/constitution-of-india/article-137-review-of-judgments-or-orders-by-the-supreme-court/
- file:///C:/Users/Asus/Downloads/SSRN-id2169967.pdf
- https://taxguru.in/income-tax/kerala-hc-explains-what-is-an-error-apparent-on-the-face-of-record.html
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80351/
- https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/curative-petition
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/history-curative-petition-india/#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20curative%20petition,of%20the%20judgment%20or%20order.
